This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
The pseudo-Left-Liberal clique/s that do seem to dominate academia and polity-centric media in many democratic countries have, in India, managed to almost sanitise the history of our Freedom Movement of significant acknowledgement/s of the INA's contribution/s to WWII.
Blaudrachen wrote:@LWD: When you say "I've heard of", you, clearly, are just relying on "wishful thinking" yourself;
the Provisional Government controlled the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (renamed "Shaheed" and "Swaraj" by them), along with some, admittedly-small areas in North-Eastern India-- in Moirang, near the North-Eastern Indian provincial capital of Imphal,
The British continued their occupancy until the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Andaman Islands during World War II.
The islands were nominally put under the authority of the Arzi Hukumate Azad Hind of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
The Allies couldn't "ignore it", given the large numbers of POWs captured after WW2,
and there were public trials in New Delhi by the British, which caused massive and the most violent demonstrations, till then, all over India, along with an actual "mutiny" in the ships of the Royal Indian Navy, off the coast of Mumbai (then Bombay); further, Congress-leaders, including the future Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, acted as defence lawyers for the captured officers and other ranks of the INA and all sections of the political spectrum, including the Muslim League, collaborated in demonstrations against the trials!
PLEASE, before being SO dismissive, read a bit about what you're dismissing out of hand;....
Blaudrachen wrote:... If you were fair-minded and had, indeed, read my posts carefully, you'ld've noticed that I never claimed the INA were independent of the Japanese; however, if you'd ANY knowledge of International Law, you'ld've known that a State that'd been recognised by a number of other states can claim to be one, ON PAPER!
You see, lots of things can be claimed on paper, in theory, e. g., the claims that American and British bombers were only targeting military installations when they'd carpet-bombed Dresden or fire-bombed Tokyo or that Churchill was a great democrat; if such outrageous claims can be made and treasured as facts, why shouldn't a slightly-hyped notion of a "State" that never surrendered on paper be so "exaggerated"?
If you'd a clearer and less-dismissive attitude to this issue,
you'ldn't've made ridiculous statements like "the existence of all the POWs suggest they did indeed surrender"; POWs're exchanged all the time through a war: it is only when a State signs an "Instrument of Surrender" that it counts as such.
Yes, of course, the INA faded away
and was suppressed in Anglo-American historiography and its Indian fellow-traveller, but, ON PAPER, it didn't surrender;
... It doesn't matter who transferred the A&N Islands to whom: the INA held them on paper and that's that, from a legal point-of-view;
further, since when does size of territories governed determine statehood or are we going to claim that Cuba or Singapore aren't States?
Lastly, I don't know what to make of your rather-insulting statement about my English: are you just being provocative yourself or're just plain, old-fashioned racist?
Blaudrachen wrote:@LWD: I leave it to the other readers to read your posts, especially the last paragraph, and judge for themselves;
you've, consistently, played with words and phrases and, in the last paragraph, make only a stretched rhetorical sense:
I'm, of course, here trying to prove a point by making other readers aware of what's, at best, a forgotten part of WW2, so what?
... of course, I've a political agenda
and the facts're on my side,
this's the last time I'll reply to your post/s here.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests